On "Serious" vs "Rules-light" games and long-term play

WARNING: DISORGANIZED RANT

Because the following thoughts are not stuff you can steal and use at your table, have a monster.

The "Burning Giraffe" - 5HD, AC as Plate, Bite & Fire Hazard Damage
Crit: grabs a target and starts removing a limb each round (like in a game of hanged man).
An eight-legged abomination the size of a small truck, but surprisingly thin, it stumbles around the dungeon halls whining and whimpering like a hurt puppy, a lure to attract would-be predators that will soon realize they're the prey. Its long neck moves like a snake and its face, between goat and horse, with its huge viscous eyes, give the impression that the beast may be way bigger than it actually when met in a corridor (and it's pretty big). Its tail is barbed and poisonous, to protect its rear, and it will favor tight corridors to avoid being flanked, as it is quite clever. When it finds its prey, it emits a horrible screech reminiscent of the barn owl's cry and instantly sets its own body aflame, then charges furiously at high speed to ram into its targets. It will then rend bodies apart with its bite and defend itself with its tail and claws, leaving charred half-remains in its wake.


***

I'm not sure, but I'm under the impression that games described or presented as "rules-light" are more easily dismissed as "not campaign worthy", in the sense that it would take way more work to get a long-term game running with them than with a "real big game", not on the basis that their design actually doesn't work for long-term games, but because of an inaccurate way we treat games as either "serious" or "beer & pretzel stuff".

1. If I show you any clone or edition of D&D that looks, on the surface, like D&D (it has the six ability scores, classes and races, etc.) you will assume it is fitted for long-term campaigns (and IMO you'll be right).

2. But if I show you a game that has different-looking mechanics AND a low page-count, or a presentation that aims for out-of-the-box or low-prep play (Maze Rats, Into the Odd, Searchers Into the Unknown, RISUS, etc.), you'll probably immediately think "this may be great for one-shots, but I can't run a long-term campaign with it).

The two things that lead me to believe this is an erroneous view that may or may not be in part due to the way marketing for BIG GAMES works are the following:

1. The earlier you go in D&D editions, the more "rules-light" things are. The only reason we don't say B/X, or OD&D, or Traveller Classic or Call of Cthulhu 1/2E are "rules-light" is because of the baggage and cultural impact they carry, which instantly lands them into "SERIOUS GAME" territory. If these games had been released today, they'd be called "rules-light" and considered way less seriously than they are as "relics of the past".
This is further supported by the fact that both OD&D and Traveller Classic are simpler than some of the games that are called "rules-light". The Black Hack has more crunchy, player-facing mechanics than the 3LBB.

2. "Rules-light" games, not all but some, including the ones I mentioned, both support long-term campaign play through their mechanics and implied process of play AND support the addition of house-rules with little trouble to make the process of play even longer. The fact that D&D is meant to be modified to support one's individual needs means this should not be discarded as "yeah but you're just changing these rules-light games into something else", since that would render arguments stating D&D can be used for long-term play null, and that would be, well, not true.

Clarification on "Rules-Light"
Which rules are "light"? I believe a game can be called rules-light if you can memorize all of the player-facing mechanics and all of the "regular, at-the-table use" GM-facing mechanics in one or two readings.

That means Shadowrun, even 1E, is not rules-light.
B/X though, is. AD&D is (sure there's a FAT quantity of stuff you can add to the game but you don't need most of it to run a session). Traveller Classic is, whereas I'm not so sure about Mongoose Traveller (what about the huge quantity of modifiers that are pre-established and need to be taken into consideration for balance purposes?) Warhammer Fantasy 1E may be, but not 2E. Etc.

This definition I'm proposing would, I believe, allow for more interesting discussions on any kind of games, since it would not derive from arbitrary notions of what games are SERIOUS and what games are BEER & PRETZEL CASUAL STUFF.

Someone said: "A lot of people call Dungeon Crawl Classics unsuitable for long term play because it lacks mechanics for longer term interactions.
Or, any kind of interactions except combat"



Answer
There is a difference between density of mechanics and density/length of the process of play.
These detractors may say the same thing about B/X, most likely misreading the presentation and purpose of D&D rules as a whole.
You don't need rules for social interactions to have a game that is rich in social interactions, and I would even defend the position that too much rules for social interactions actually detract from having a game emphasizing this aspect of play.
DCC has rules for non-combat skills, although they are not mechanically complex, they entail a wide array of possibilities since they're occupation-based.

Now, I'm not super well-versed in DCC, but checking out the "Journeys & Quests" chapter which covers campaign play, the implied process of play seems to cover characters starting at funnel-level and potentially reaching high-levels, which by itself and through play would lead to an increase in responsibilities, power to affect the entire game world, and higher stakes.
The games I'm trying to put forth are way more simpler in their presentation though.
DCC is almost 500 pages long, it doesn't really need to prove its point.
I want it to be possible for people to consider that even games like Searchers into the Unknown can support long-term campaigns (as they have in the past). SitU is a game where a character sheet looks like that:

Vassili Porko, 1HD, AC5, MV9, sword, torches, rations (at chargen)

Doesn't mean it can't end up having lengthy notes on what the character did, what objectives it developed, what contacts and relationships it has, a list of its retainers and pets, a propriety with a map and stuff in it, projects, etc. which emerge in any campaign (or at least those focused on adventure).

One argument I often read is that people assume you need "a large array of character growth options" to support long-term play. But this would mean by-the-book AD&D, the primordial example of a campaign-based RPG, does not, in fact, support long-term play: without proficiencies, the only progression is vertical: fighters get better at fighting, wizards get more spells, clerics get better at turning undead, etc. But at the end of the day, higher level only means more potential for action because it allows you to survive more of the same stuff that you interacted with at low level - the options for character growth are an incidental by-product of the system, not parts of the system themselves.

The actual things that define a long-term campaign (tentatively, higher stakes and positions of power for the players) aren't system-dependent. That means you can run a game that is "rules-light", and, with or without adding mechanicaly complexity to it, with enough of the same work you'd put in a fat game, run a long-term (6+ months, or years) campaign with it. The only difference is that in that case, the only kind of effort you'll be putting will be the kind that is immediately useful at the table: you'll be spending more time using and exercizing your imagination with considerations of setting, monsters, creative problems, magical items, NPCs, etc. Than with rules tweaks.

And I believe the hobby needs more of that, and less "how should we tweak the XP chart of the thief?"